rec.photo.landscape?
Beakman
: Just thought I can find any technique about landscape photography here
: and I just found out this is actually a "rec.photo.technique.wildlife"
: group. Where is the people who loves landscape photography?
As a landscape photographer I would support a landscape group if there
was enough interest. However, I think that rec.photo.technique.nature is
a perfectly acceptable place for discussions about landscape
photography. If people want to discuss landscape photography here, they
need to speak up to get some discussions rolling.
david
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
The Beakman Boston Sushi Society
bea...@netcom.com To subscribe to mailing list, send email to:
list...@netcom.com
In the body of your letter write:
subscribe bss-l <your email address>
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Robert M Atkins
>Neng-Jen Shih (njs...@chicken.engr.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
>: Just thought I can find any technique about landscape photography here
>: and I just found out this is actually a "rec.photo.technique.wildlife"
>: group. Where is the people who loves landscape photography?
>
>As a landscape photographer I would support a landscape group if there
>was enough interest. However, I think that rec.photo.technique.nature is
>a perfectly acceptable place for discussions about landscape
>photography. If people want to discuss landscape photography here, they
>need to speak up to get some discussions rolling.
>
>david
>--
Absolutely. Read the charter (OK, I'll post it). This is a *NATURE* group.
Any nature is OK. Wildlife, flowers, landscapes are all nature. All
are topics for this group. Discussions may have centered on wildlife,
but that's only because of the people posting right now, not anything
to do with what's appropriate for the group.
Bob Atkins
AT&T BEll Labs, Murray Hill, NJ Email: r...@clockwise.att.com
==============================================================================
CHARTER: rec.photo.technique.nature
rec.photo.technique.nature Wildlife, landscapes, travel tips etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This group is for the discussion of the techniques involved in nature
photography and other peripheral issues. It is not intended for
discussions of equipment except where a piece of equipment is directly
related to some other technique issue. Strictly equipment discussions
should take place in the relevant equipment group. Issues appropriate
for this group would be ethics of nature photography, questions about
locations for nature photography, questions about how to most
effectively *USE* equipment, questions about projected flash
techniques, questions about macro techniques, etc.
Examples of appropriate question involving equipment might be:
* What's the most useful fixed focal length lens for landscapes,
20, 24 or 28mm?
* Is a 300/4 or 400/5.6 lens more useful for wildlife work?
* Is mirror lock up really useful in nature photography?
* Is autofocus really needed for nature photography?
Inappropriate equipment related questions would be:
* Is the Canon 24/2.8 better than the Sigma 24/2.8?
* Is the Canon 300/4L better than the Sigma 400/5.6 APO?
* What's the best 100-300mm zoom lens?
* Does anyone have test reports on the Nikon 80-200/2.8?
All questions about specific items of equipment belong in the
equipment groups. Tagging on a nature comment such as "is lens A
better than lens B - FOR NATURE WORK", does *NOT* make them
appropriate for the technique group!
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This
group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial advertisments or
other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are
prohibited.
jh...@andrew.cmu.edu
and the asthetics of producing images of fine art quality. Too many of the photographic news groups
are dovoted to the gadgets rather than the art.
Joe Henry
In <beakmanD...@netcom.com>, bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>Neng-Jen Shih (njs...@chicken.engr.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
>: Just thought I can find any technique about landscape photography here
>: and I just found out this is actually a "rec.photo.technique.wildlife"
>: group. Where is the people who loves landscape photography?
>
>As a landscape photographer I would support a landscape group if there
>was enough interest. However, I think that rec.photo.technique.nature is
>a perfectly acceptable place for discussions about landscape
>photography. If people want to discuss landscape photography here, they
>need to speak up to get some discussions rolling.
>
>david
>--
Craig Huxley
work. I have been using a 28+ zoom but it just doesn't seem wide enough for
that broad horizons effect.
I thought a 20mm would be best but someone said that I would end up with too
much sky and foreground. Would 24mm be better?
Regards,
Craig
__________________________________________________
cr...@dyson.brisnet.org.au
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
__________________________________________________
Peter Headland
> much sky and foreground. Would 24mm be better?
I use a Sigma 18-35 zoom so I get to choose! Stopped down to f/8 you'd be
pushed to know it wasn't a prime (though flare is more of a problem). I also
like to use panoramic slide mounts to get rid of the excess sky/foreground when
I have used the ultra-wide end of the lens - I find it easy enough to visualise
the final effect without any gimmicks in the camera.
Come to that, I use various format slide masks quite a bit (only rectangular -
not hearts & keyholes ;-) - my audiences really appreciate a change from 2:3.
--
Peter Headland - Matrix Link Limited - Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Grover Larkins
says...
>
>In <27X6Nm$0...@dyson.brisnet.org.au> cr...@dyson.brisnet.org.au (Craig
>Huxley) writes:
>>
>
>>I thought a 20mm would be best but someone said that I would end up
>with too
>>much sky and foreground. Would 24mm be better?
>>
30% of the time and a 35mm lens about 20% of the time when I am
using a wide angle lens. A polarizing filter is used about 85% of the time
with all of these lenses -- less often on the wider lenses where you can
get uneven effects in the sky etc...
Grover Larkins
Joseph Albert
>The key to quality landscape images is to be able to extract asthetic protions of a landscape.
>I think you should consider a longer lens if you are going to buy just one. I recommend a 80-200 f2.8
>zoom lens.
a poor choice for landscape work, as you demonstrate below.
>If you are shooting landscapes and not wildlife a slower lens such as a f4 or f5.6 will be cheaper, as good a quality and
>much lighter to carry to remote places.
yep. unless one needs f/2.8 speed, there is no reason to consider
an 80-200/2.8 at all, and the absence of a tripod mount on the
Nikkor is another problem using it for landscape work. Now
if you plan to consider wildlife images as well, it is of course
a rather different story. Even then, I would prefer to carry
something like an 85/2, 135/2.8, and 200/2.8 to an 80-200/2.8.
the zoom is a big and heavy thing hanging off the front of the
camera which creates additional technical challenges that center
around keeping the camera stable. when shooting in the short and
mid range, I find an 85/2 and 135/2.8 to be much more convenient to use.
and an 85/2, 135/2.8, and 200/4 is a nicer, lighter package for landscape
use.
But I agree that sometimes people feel landscape image implies wide angle,
and it is good to look for all sorts of images in the landscape.
Mountain photography especially demands longer lenses, to pick out
particular peaks or cliffs etc. A portrait of a mountain, is what I
call it. When shooting 35mm, I generally don't use lenses longer than
200mm for landscape work though, on account of the flattening of perspective
which loses the texture. I occasionally shoot a 300mm scenic shot when
flattening of perspective is desired. However, to pick out features of a
landscape, I almost always prefer, when possible, to move closer and use
a shorter lens than shoot in the 200mm to 300mm range. A shorter lens
maintains more of the texture of the scene.
J. Albert
Luca de Alfaro
The 35mm allows me to give a good sense of depth and perspective,
while concentrating the vision on a good angle of landscape. 28mm or
less seems too wide to me, unless there are special features around.
85mm allows me to isolate a smaller part of the landscape, and extract
the maximum of its beauty.
Luca
x...@bahnhof.se
(Joseph Albert) wrote:
> But I agree that sometimes people feel landscape image implies wide angle,
> and it is good to look for all sorts of images in the landscape.
> Mountain photography especially demands longer lenses, to pick out
> particular peaks or cliffs etc. A portrait of a mountain, is what I
> call it. When shooting 35mm, I generally don't use lenses longer than
> 200mm for landscape work though, on account of the flattening of perspective
> which loses the texture. I occasionally shoot a 300mm scenic shot when
> flattening of perspective is desired. However, to pick out features of a
> landscape, I almost always prefer, when possible, to move closer and use
> a shorter lens than shoot in the 200mm to 300mm range. A shorter lens
> maintains more of the texture of the scene.
The best lens for a landscape depends on the landscape. In the open, rolling
plains, I have often used lenses in the 100--135 mm range to good effect (I'm
talking 35 mm now). In the woods or in certain mountain environments, this
is far too constricted. There, I use 50 to 24 mm. The 35 mm is often quite
useful. But it is true that you have to watch your foreground when usin a
ver wide angle. --Also, if you backpack, grams count. In the 135, I use a very
light f:3.5 version for my Olympuses because of the low weight.
Lars Bergquist
timbe...@bahnhof.se
(lexicographer ... "a harmless drudge" according to Dr. Johnson,
so bear with me)
Chris Valentine
Peter_H...@matrixlk.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Don't forget the useful technique of shooting with an ultra-wide lens and
> mounting your transparency in a panoramic mask. These masks are easy to
obtain
> and work well. There's no law says we have to use 3:2 format (36mm x
24mm) all
> the time!
That's a great point. I've recently got a Sigma 14mm f3.5 in Canon EOS
mount for use at work. I rushed out to shoot a test roll, mostly nature,
and was stunned by the incredible take-in of this thing. Lens flair is a
problem, as you'd expect, unless you like to take shots with flair
deliberately. You also have to be extra careful with the front element,
although the built-in metal hood helps here. Considering how rare these
extreme lenses must be, I thought it was fairly cheap at 560 UKP, inc tax
(but that may be coz I didn't have to pay for it!).
Cropping slides with the mount would actually make it more versatile still.
If I didn't need such an enormous angle for work, the Sigma 18-35mm zoom
would have been my choice.
Chris.
Multimedia Enabling Technologies Group,
KMi, The Open University, UK
http://met.open.ac.uk/METHome.html
Personal: http://met.open.ac.uk/group/cpv/chris_valentine.html